it is not cut; because they have consented to the delay of their rights for an advantage they obtain, while the insolvent person (19) requests that which causes harm to himself and prevents the creditors from receiving the amount that results from the increase through the delay; therefore, the creditors are not obliged to grant his request for that.

Section: If the creditors acknowledge that the crops or growth belong to the seller, but do not testify to it, or testify to it but are not upright (udul), or their testimony is not adjudicated upon, the insolvent person takes an oath, and the growth is established as belonging to him, and he acts alone regarding it to the exclusion of them; because they acknowledge that they have no right to it. If he wishes to give it to one of them and allocate its price to him, he may do so; because the rest of them have acknowledged the absence of their right to it. If that creditor refuses to accept it, he is compelled to accept it, or to release the insolvent person from an amount of his debt; so it is said to him: Either you take possession of it, or you release him from the amount of that from your debt. This is the school of al-Shafi'i; because it is adjudicated against the insolvent person, so he may settle his debt from it, just as if the contract-manumitted slave (mukatab) paid his master the installments of his manumission contract, and his master said: "This is unlawful," while the mukatab denied it. If he wishes to distribute it among the creditors, they are required to accept it or grant a release for that reason. If they take possession of the fruit itself, they are required to return what they obtained to the seller; because they acknowledge it belongs to him, so they are required to deliver it to him, just as if they acknowledged the emancipation of a slave in the possession of someone else, and then purchased him from him. If he sells the fruit and distributes its price among them, or pays it to some of them, they are not required to return what they have taken from its price; because they only acknowledged the essence, not its price. If some of the creditors testify and others do not, or some acknowledge and others do not, the ruling we mentioned applies to the witness or the acknowledger, and not to the others. If the insolvent person offers the fruit itself to them, and they refuse to take it, they are not required to do so; because they are only required to take satisfaction from the genus of their debts, unless there is among them one whose debt is of the same genus as the fruit or crops, such as a lender or someone involved in a Salam contract, then he is required to take what is offered to him if it is of the quality of his right. If the creditors acknowledge that the insolvent person emancipated a slave